MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000585397 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450780115

Fluidized state gelation of ceramic microspheres: Feasibility study of a continuous process and analysis of the chemical dehydration phenomena

2000· article· en· W2000585397 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Giorgio Rovero, Marco Vanni

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMesoporous Materials and Catalysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCeramicCalcinationSinteringToughnessChemical engineeringFluidized bedDrop (telecommunication)Composite materialChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A continuous gelation process for producing aluminum and zirconium hydroxide microparticles was conceived and tested in a lab‐scale apparatus. Fluidized state was devised as an appropriate hydrodynamic configuration to maintain the reacting sol microdrops suspended: stable non‐coalescing spherical gel particles in a size range quite below 100 μm were produced via gelation. The microspheres produced by a subsequent calcination step showed a diameter ranging between 2 μm and 20 μm. This powder, without further size classification, was an optimal product to manufacture test specimens by sintering. Measurements on the mechanical properties, such as toughness, flexural strength and hardness, classified the test bars as a very promising ceramic material. In order to enlighten the chemical drying phenomenon and devise the main governing mechanisms acting in the gelation reaction, an extremely simplified experimental system was set. A single drop of sol was deposited into a given amount of the dehydrating liquid medium and observed by an optical microscope; image analysis permitted us to identify the gel formation, the size reduction kinetics, as well as secondary phenomena.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicMesoporous Materials and CatalysisFrench-language works237,207